Fireworks in Judiciary Over Radical Judges Issuing Nationwide Injunctions, plus Colorado Terrorist Affiliated w Muslim Brotherhood
27:44 Share

This is an iHeart Podcast. Welcome, it is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. It's really nice to have you with us on this Wednesday morning. And Senator, we've got two big topics to discuss today, including something in the Senate that got a little spicy between you and Cory Booker. Well, it did. So yesterday I chaired a hearing that was examining the abuse of power from individual district court judges.

who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and the Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of lawfare. This is, in the last four years, we saw Democrat prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That was, they were doing everything they could to stop the voters from re-electing President Trump. That failed. Now, during the Trump presidency...

We are seeing lawfare unfold. We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day. We are seeing left-wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day. And they are seeking out radical left-wing judges who've been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have seen...

is we have seen over 40 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of just how egregious this is, in the first 150 years of our nation's history, Ben, do you know how many nationwide injunctions were issued? I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to 40, it's not going to be a lot. The number would be zero. So the first 150 years of our nation's history, there was not a single nationwide injunction that was issued.

Now, how about the 20th century? The 20th century, the entire hundred years from 1900 to 1999, there have been more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the first five months than there were in the entire 20th century. There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump than there have been

during the George W. Bush presidency, plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency all combined. This is an assault. You have left-wing judges, individual radical district judges, who are issuing injunctions trying to set aside the policies of the president and trying to set aside...

It really is shocking. And the level of, I think, attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear.

It is these judges are saying we're going to take away the power of the presidency. The dangerous aspect of that precedent is also something that I would hope that many people that maybe consider themselves to be moderate or liberal would be concerned about because that's not how this country is supposed to work. Now, it should not be an individual district judge.

Having the ability to set aside the policies of the United States government, the president of the United States, and the policies that the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest issue in this last election was the voters were sick and tired of the open borders we saw for four years, the invasion of 12 million illegal immigrants. And they wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists, child molesters,

violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump is doing. And we're seeing the Democrats who are suing over and over again, and they're getting radical left-wing judges to issue orders saying stop deporting criminals. And it's lawless. By the way, federal immigration law gives enormous power to the president.

to deport illegal immigrants. And these radical judges, they don't care. And I will tell you, as we were discussing this in this hearing, so the Democrats all showed up for this hearing and they were loaded for bear. And they were all attacking President Trump. That was no surprise.

And they were saying the president is horribly saying mean, mean things about judges. And mind you, these are judges who are dramatically abusing their power. And yet the Democrats were all pretending to be horrified that the president would criticize judges. Now, I want to play for you an exchange I had. I was talking about the hypocrisy of Democrats who...

are claiming to be defending judges, and yet when Joe Biden was president and you had violent mobs protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, the Democrats said not a word. They were not bothered at all that the Biden Justice Department refused to enforce the criminal law that makes it a crime to protest outside the home of a justice and to threaten the justice's families as they were. And there was an exchange...

So Cory Booker, he's a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Cory wants to run for president. He wants to run as the great liberal hope. And Cory decided to engage with me and attack me on this issue. And he and I went back and forth. And I want to play this entire exchange. It's a little bit extended. But this exchange was striking because he jumped in and he's like, no, no, no, I'm going to fight you on this point. And I've got to say, I don't want to be a spoiler here.

But I don't think it went well for Corey. Give a listen. It did not. Here it is. Indulge me for a moment. We indulge you every moment. I appreciate that act of generosity. It's just something you said that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed, and you're welcome. But when Judge Anderle was killed in New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate

their outpouring of support, their outpouring of concern, their willing to work together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary. It shows the truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery rhetoric that you were sowing, we're really a bipartisan, working bipartisanship. Cornyn and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about, got together and actually passed a bill to better protect our Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours.

You know, Gorsuch and I disagree on a lot of stuff. I knew his wife before he did. We studied together at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons. I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman, on more than once condemning those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists.

To say things like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true. It's just plain not true. And I think you know that, but we can pull from the record from my colleagues in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it.

There's a lot of substantive things to say here, but to think that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being threatened was not in existence, I think that's unfair and really concerns me that you would say that in the way that you did. Well, I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note, as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things. And it is existing federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1507, that makes it a crime

to protest at a judge's home. And the law provides whoever with the intent of interfering with obstructing or impeding the administration of justice or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer

or with such intent uses any sound truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both. That is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices' homes, and in the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody.

We had the Attorney General sitting at that table and multiple Republican senators asked him, "Why are you not enforcing the law? What they are doing is a crime." And my friend from New Jersey said, "It is a lie to say we the Democrats condone this." I would challenge my friend, find a single Democrat senator on this committee holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law.

I was here at those hearings and I do not recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General, "You should arrest these people who are violating the law. You should protect the judges." I agree that there was general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator

that I ever saw in this committee was willing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding the federal criminal law because the Biden administration agreed with the protesters and I think wanted those justices harassed at their homes. I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests at Supreme Court justices' homes.

Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way not only to condemn that but

but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection literally days. It was introduced May 5th, passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion on May 9th. So if you're saying that we didn't criticize Mayor Garland... Did the Biden DOJ arrest a single person under this law? Sir, you are now changing the accusation that you made. No, that is what I said. That is what I said. Again, I'll pull the record. Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one? Again... The answer is no. My point to you is the accusation...

that the Democrats on this committee do not care about the safety of federal judges. I did not interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish. I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country. The attacks we see from the President of the United States of America

Trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about that puts people in danger. I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing. You said we were silent after people's houses were protested. That is a patent lie, sir.

We were not silent. We took action. We joined in a bipartisan way to protect those judges, as was done in a bipartisan way to protect

a New Jersey judge after their horrific attack at their home. So I see you now trying to shift the debate to whether we talk to an attorney general. I'm simply taking issue with this accusation that somehow we Democrats are so bad because we don't call out threats to our judicial colleagues. And that is wrong. You could change the argument now that you want, but what you said was patently not true and was in fact a patent lie.

So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent lie and says he's doing so in defense of lowering the rhetoric. There is some irony to doing those two together. I'll point out that in the entire course of those remarks, Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made, which is the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted zero people,

for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat senator on this committee was silent about it. And this was an ongoing pattern for months. And I would note also that the senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls about language

threatening judges, and yet I do not recall a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices by name, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and he said, you have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And

And not a single Democrat senator had a word to say about this. And so their outrage is selective. And I will give my colleague from New Jersey a chance to just answer a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden Justice Department have enforced

the criminal law against protesting at a justice's home, yes or no? So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next day and you holding that standard for him and not for your president, who you actually rightfully described when you were running against him in a primary, I would love to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about the danger of our president and his rhetoric.

But now you are failing, in fact, blind to the very things you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump would know an apology if it hit him in the head. Never has said apologizing. So again, you are very, very, sir, very, very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your criticisms of Chuck Schumer.

So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law should be enforced because he knows the answer is yes

And he knows that the Biden Department of Justice was being wildly political and partisan in refusing to enforce the law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court justices' rulings. That was one very entertaining back and forth, Senator. I wish there was actually more of this in the Senate because it's a great moment where you can see two very different viewpoints of

to very different ways of looking at this. And like you said, it did not go well for Cory Booker. But I actually love that there's this type of grand debate. Absolutely. We need to have this engagement. We need to have this engagement on ideas.

And it's striking. The Democrats, they claim they support democracy. But yet, when it comes to Donald Trump, they want a single, unelected district judge striking down every policy he implements.

And they don't care that the American people voted for it. They want power. And look, in the course of this hearing, there were a couple of points I made that no Democrat had a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed over and over again before radical left-wing judges. Of the 40-plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration, 35 of them have been in Congress.

five jurisdictions, five left-wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these left-wing judges because they know that they'll rule for them. And the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just violating the law. Well, you know what? If that were true, you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not. The Democrat attorneys general, the left-wing interest groups, are going to seek out the radicals because they know the radicals

will rule for them. And we're not seeing Democrat senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say,

give any explanation as to why one radical judge should be able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President of the United States who was elected by the American people to secure the borders, to bring us back to common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important and I gotta say I think Cory Booker, listen, Cory is running for President of the United States. That's not complicated. He's gonna run in 2028.

And he's running in the left lane of the Democrat Party. So he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren. He's going to take on AOC. And he's going to argue, I am liberal Democrat, hear me roar. But...

at the end of the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you got a problem of you actually got to address the substance. And I think today we did, and it was not the outcome he was hoping for. It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments that I'll be interested to see, uh,

When this audio and video comes back to haunt him down the road in that presidential run you mentioned, because I think he thought he was about to have a moment, and it's not the moment he probably was hoping for if you go back and look at that tape.

I want to also get to this other big issue, and that is out in Colorado and the terror attack there. We've got a significant update on this individual and also real concerns and honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat of other terrorists that may be in this country that were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration. Well, it turns out that four years of open borders, allowing over 12 million people to come into this country illegally,

That was a really bad policy. And even worse, look, there were 10 million people who were apprehended by the Biden administration. They let them go. That is problematic on many, many fronts. But the most disturbing number is 2 million. There are roughly 2 million gotaways. Those are people that crossed the border. We know crossed the border, but yet they escaped prison.

detection. And those gotaways are much, much more likely to be criminals. They're much more likely to be murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, gang members. And if you look at this radical who attacked and firebombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado,

This was a guy who never should have been in this country to begin with. He came in on a tourist visa. He overstayed it. And this was a radical Islamist. And I want to read to you a tweet from

From Bill Malusian. Now, regular listeners of this podcast know Bill Malusian is the best reporter in America. He reports for Fox News, and he's been detailing what's going on at the border. Here's what Bill Malusian tweeted. Breaking. New details on Colorado terror attack suspect.

as feds charge him with federal hate crime. According to federal court filings obtained by Fox News, Egyptian illegal alien Mohammed Salman admitted in an interview that he wanted to kill all, quote, Zionist people, and he had been planning the attack for a year, and that he would conduct the attack again if he could. He allegedly told investigators that he waited to carry out the attack

until his daughter graduated high school, and that he specifically targeted the, quote, Zionist group in Boulder after learning about them from an online search. It was premeditated, as he allegedly admitted he knew they would gather on Sunday at 1 p.m. He arrived and waited for them. Additionally, investigators found a black container with 14 more Molotov cocktails in

near the spot he was arrested in. Inside his vehicle, investigators found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine, and USAID. This man was admitted into the country via a tourist visa during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed an asylum request, and was granted work authorization by the Biden administration

which expired at the end of March of this year. So understand, this guy came into this country, he overstayed his visa, and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look, a radical Islamic terrorist, we want you to stay. It was not hard to figure out from his social media who this guy was.

But the Biden administration, they were not focused on defending this nation. They were not focused on stopping terrorists from coming in this country. Instead, they made a political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben, why would Democrats open up the borders? It clearly hurt them in the last election. Why would they do this? And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed 12 million illegal immigrants. They said, listen, every one of these we think are going to vote for Democrats.

We want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally. The rest of them, they believed if they stayed in power, they would grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if they have to bring in Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who are murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that. This is the part that I really think we do need to make it clear that

Not just now, but in the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to this in your comments there, their plan they knew was going to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint. They were willing to play Russian roulette with that open border, and they were warned, and they saw the people that were on the terrorist watch list, Senator, and they didn't care.

because it was their overall plan to flood the country with illegal immigrants and fundamentally change this country. They knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists, some of them on the terrorist watch list at the time, to get into this country, and they still continued to have the open border policy because they basically said, hey, it's part of our bigger plan, and there's going to be collateral damage from this, so be it. Yeah.

And listen, when I say this, this sounds harsh. And you sort of think of a listener who's not terribly political, and they're like, wait, the Democrats couldn't really want more terrorists in this country. But at the end of the day, that was the inevitable consequence of the policies they put in place. When you allow 12 million people to cross the border illegally. And by the way, the Biden border control policy

the Border Patrol, they instructed their agents, be on the lookout for Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists coming across this border.

Look, we have radical zealots who have declared jihad on America, who have demanded of their terrorists, murder as many Americans as you can and murder as many Jews and Israelis as you can. And in the face of those very real and clear national security threats, those

The fact that the Biden administration and the Democrats, it wasn't just Joe Biden. It wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was every single Democrat in the Senate. It was every single Democrat in the House because they voted in favor of open borders forever.

over and over and over again. They knew that some of the people coming were just like this radical. And listen, I've reintroduced this week legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The Muslim Brotherhood, sadly— And by the way, this is something you've been sounding the alarm on for quite some time. I want to be very clear about that.

So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt. It is in Qatar. It is all across the Middle East. And the Muslim Brotherhood openly, aggressively, they support Hamas. They support Hezbollah. They are a terrorist organization. And by the way, to be clear,

In Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look, we had Mohammed Morsi, who was the leader of Egypt, who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now, thankfully, Mohammed Morsi was defeated, and he was defeated by al-Sisi, who is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, if you look at the Arabs who are dealing with this,

The Muslim Brotherhood and the jihadists, they believe in using violence, using murder to force people to embrace their radical Islamist view. And yet, these are the radicals that are fighting, that are murdering Israelis and that are murdering Americans. And this is exactly the radicals that this lunatic in Boulder, Colorado was embracing.

and that Joe Biden and the Democrats were letting into this country. Final question on the designate of Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to be the moment where you think there's a decent chance that this can become reality, or are there still going to be Democrats at all costs that say we are going to defend this? So I hope so. So right now today,

The Muslim Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia. They're designated in the United Arab Emirates. They're designated in Egypt, in Syria, and Bahrain. But the United States has yet to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jihad, the murdering of innocents,

They are a terrorist organization. And so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term and,

for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated, we did not succeed. I think we will succeed this administration. I think President Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to keep pressing, designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, because that is who they are, and we saw the horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.

It's an incredible story, and it's a sad one. It's also one that we must keep following and keep fighting to protect American citizens. We're going to keep keeping you updated on this story.

Moving forward here on Verdict, I promise you that. Don't forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So make sure you hit that subscribe or auto-download button so that you do not miss an episode. Please write us a five-star review. It helps us reach new listeners more than you can imagine. So if you've not done that, please do that. And share this wherever you are, like I said, on social media. And the center and I will see you back here Friday morning. This is an iHeart Podcast.